Dell Inspiron Mini 9 Reviewed: Refining the Netbook Market
by Anand Lal Shimpi on September 4, 2008 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Laptops
Performance & Battery Life
The Inspiron Mini 9 is designed to be used as an appliance, a box that can give you access to email, the web and applications. It happens to be a computer, but that's not the focus. Performance in any of its individual tasks such as web browsing or document editing is acceptable on the Mini. The Atom processor is fast enough and with 1GB of memory you can keep a couple of applications active without running into any slowdown.
Boot time is the only area where the Mini really falls short compared to the ASUS Eee PC 901. While the 901 can start from an off state and take you into its Xandros OS in 27 seconds, the Mini needs 40 to do the same. I'm not sure if this is an Ubuntu issue or a Mini hardware/BIOS thing at this point.
While the Eee PC 901 has a 6-cell battery (48WHr), Dell cut costs by using a 4-cell 32WHr battery in the Inspiron Mini 9. I scripted a quick web/MP3 playback test, similar to what I’ve used in some of our Mac coverage. With the display set to never shut off (simulating a real browsing scenario), looping through a bunch of locally stored MP3s, I had both the Eee PC 901 and the Inspiron Mini surf through a bunch of webpages (over the local WiFi network) designed to forward to one another after pausing for 20 seconds (simulating "reading time"). The web pages were predominantly text and images, there was no Flash but the system isn't given any breaks other than the 20 second pause between pages - for a netbook, this is pretty much a torture test.
| ASUS Eee PC 901 | Dell Inspiron Mini | |
| Boot Time | 27 seconds | 40 seconds |
| Battery Life (Web Browsing + MP3 Playback) | 287 minutes | 178 minutes |
Dell claims that the Inspiron Mini should be good for over four hours of battery life, running the test I just described it ran for 178 minutes, just two minutes shy of the 3 hour mark. If you lighten your load I'd expect that hitting 4 hours could be a reality, but for all intents and purposes I'd expect the Mini to be good for 3 - 4 hours of usage.
ASUS' Eee PC 901 did a bit better as you'd expect; with 50% more battery capacity, the Eee PC lasted for 287 minutes , nearly 5 hours of continuous use. Here's where positioning really comes into play though.
I honestly couldn't find myself using either notebook all day, they aren't ergonomic enough and they are still far from pleasurable to type on. Dell views the Inspiron Mini much like I do the iPhone, it's a device to carry with you when you're out to a quick meeting, class, lunch, etc... and happen to be away from your more, um, normal sized computers. If you use it as intended, I believe Dell's battery life tradeoff is a nonissue. If the Inspiron Mini is going to be more of a constant-use machine for you however, the longer battery life of the Eee PC may tempt you away from the Mini's stunning good looks.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
55 Comments
View All Comments
rowcroft - Thursday, September 4, 2008 - link
I have an Acer Aspire 1 - $349 for the 120GB HDD, XP (need it for WWAN card), 1GB RAM, but no bluetooth.Still, I think it's a much more compelling offer than either this or the Asus and suggest you get one to evaluate.
strikeback03 - Thursday, September 4, 2008 - link
I think that picture at the bottom of the first page shows why I hate glossy screens.What I am waiting for is someone to come out with a device that falls somewhere between an Epson P5000 and an Archos 5" internet tablet. Run a real OS, have a decent sized hard drive for music and photo downloads, multiple card readers, touchscreen, and the ability to go on the internet occasionally if it is around. Closest netbook is the Wind or possibly the Lenovo it would seem, but I wouldn't plan on typing enough to need a real keyboard.
prophet001 - Thursday, September 4, 2008 - link
seriously, 118 wpm? how in the world did you get that fast? i've been typing everyday for 6 years and I can't type that fast. Any tips?preslove - Thursday, September 4, 2008 - link
I'm torn now between betting the Dell Mini 9 or the EEE pc 1000H. There really isn't any reason to buy EEE 901, since it is more expensive than the 1000H, which is $549.99, and is only .8 pounds lighter. The 1000H has a much roomier keyboard that is supposedly closer to a "real" notebook's keyboard than a netbook.Two major advantages of the 1000H over the Dell, though, are that it comes with an 80 gig hd and a 6 cell battery. Also it comes with 1 gig of Ram standard.
Adding all the options to the Dell, Win XP, ram upgrade, camera upgrade, and bluetooh and it adds up to $494. That's $65 less than the 1000H, which has a better keyboard and a good sized hard drive, but is about a pound heavier.
I wish these two were in stores so I could compare the weight and keyboards, as that would probably help be choose.
One question: Can the Mini accept a 2 gig stick of Ram?
tayhimself - Thursday, September 4, 2008 - link
Yes 2 GB RAM interest here too. The Acer Aspire looks good to me as well.JarredWalton - Thursday, September 4, 2008 - link
10" netbooks actually start to become viable as a full-time laptop... almost. I'm not Ben, but I'm right with him in terms of typing on these things. I draw the line of comfort at 13.3" notebooks. Predictive typing would help some, but with the width of my shoulders I still end up feeling cramped on anything smaller. (Why can't I get a natural keyboard on a laptop? LOL)However, the above said, 10" is still small and I think too many people are looking at these as a full notebook/desktop replacement rather than a mobile device that supplements regular computer use. 2GB RAM and 80GB HDDs... and then next we'll need faster CPUs and discrete GPUs, and an optical drive, and.... It's a slippery slope, and I think you should either get a real notebook (13.3" or larger - or 12.1" if you don't mind the smaller keyboards) or understand that the netbook is not supposed to be a full notebook and use it as intended. For $350, the Dell Mini looks extremely promising.
n0nsense - Thursday, September 4, 2008 - link
I think the perfect one should be:1. Little bit more powerful processor (Atom dual core or AMD X2)
2. More advanced chipset (less heat more graphics performance and output options) which will allow playback of 1080p on TV.
3. Normal 2.5" HDD/SDD options for upgrade.
4. I would like touchscreen (multi touch is even better)
The rest i think is very close to be perfect.
The reason is for all this more performance is:
Try to listen to some last.fm radio on the web + some fullscreen flash web page or game.
And yes, i know, all this "more" will kill more expensive notebooks.
psychobriggsy - Friday, September 5, 2008 - link
1) Yes, a dual-core Atom would be nice, but it is already multi-threaded (whoa, what's up with this text box, it's gone all funky!)1b) AMD (soon will) have a 22W 1.5GHz X2. I don't know how much power it uses when PowerNow! is enabled, but AMD need to get a standard Athlon 64 out first that has PowerNow! ranges starting from 400MHz at very low voltage first. They do have a 15W Athlon 64 coming out soon as well.
2) This is the most important aspect, and where all the Atom netbooks are failing right now. It's almost criminal.
3) Really unimportant, these are mobile companions. Bet Palm feels stupid in cancelling the Foleo, when it turns out that form factor is what people want.
4) That Dell Linux interface would be perfect for touchscreen.
JarredWalton - Friday, September 5, 2008 - link
You do know that Atom N270 is like 1.5W TDP, right? http://download.intel.com/design/processor/datasht...">Reference A 22W 1.5GHz X2 would use over 10X as much power as the N270. The problem right now is the chipset; we need Poulsbo.psychobriggsy - Friday, September 5, 2008 - link
And the multi-threaded Atom is 2.5W, and the 64-bit Atom is 4W, and the dual-core Atom will be 8W.Also Paulsbo will suck, it's designed for MIDs, maybe the netbooks will be okay with it, but barely. It's a 130nm chip so however cool running the process they are using, it's limiting the clock speed of the GPU, and the number of features it can have.
AMD have an 8W Athlon 64 already, and in reviews the platform consumes less power and outperforms Atom - in a desktop scenario.